OPINION: Fight fans shouldn’t expect CM Punk to be fighting a big name opponent of any kind

When it was eventually revealed, at Saturday night's UFC 181 PPV, that former pro wrestler CM Punk had signed with the UFC, prospective bouts by the dozen flooded the minds of fight fans.

People shouldn't get carried away with the caliber of fight in which CM Punk (real name Phil Brooks) will make his fight debut despite the exciting potential for a spectacular encounter. UFC fighters are also clawing for the opportunity to be the first to take on Brooks as they know it will lead to a big pay-day and won't likely be the toughest bout in the world. Even our own Cathal Pendred is pushing for the chance, tweeting today that the match-up had already been made despite "The Punisher" having a January fight with Sean Spencer yet to take place.

This punk is going to be 'one & done' in the UFC. It looks like I will be that one. #JustWonTheLottery pic.twitter.com/KVvwe2WXqE — Cathal Pendred (@PendredMMA) December 10, 2014

I'm not blaming Cathal for angling for the fight. If I was a fighter, I'd also be looking for the perfect fight formula which is essentially Largest Purse x Least Risk = Ideal.  But the confirmation of a Pendred v Punk fight is about as likely as a timid Conor McGregor interview because of the little matter of athletic commissions. As we enter 2015, mixed martial arts is almost universally accepted as being as legitimate a sport as any. For those who think that some bloodthirsty, money-hungry tyrant sits down and puts together a fight that will make the most profit for the organisation, you're simply wrong. Well kind of. MMA executives in any promotion are obviously in the business of increasing their profits but they can't do so completely devoid of regulations. Dana White can't just say "fans would pay for Anderson Silva v CM Punk, DONE!" and make the fight. Athletic commissions are in place to defend the safety of fighters, just as they are in boxing. Brooks or Punk or whatever he wants to go buy is 36 years old and has ZERO fight experience, not even amateur credentials in boxing or wrestling. That leaves the former WWE superstar with an undeniably difficult task of being granted a licence by a credible commission. The head of the athletic commission in New Jersey, Larry Hazzard, announced that it would "raise a red flag," if he was to receive an application for a licence from Brooks. "We would really have to look at this very closely," he told FoxSports. "We would have to take a close look at it. Normally, we require some type of background as either an amateur or a professional. This would certainly raise a red flag." Similarly, Nevada Athletic Commission executive director Bob Bennett explained that "the matchup would matter a great deal," when considering the awarding of a licence to Brooks. "We are not going to put someone with no fight experience in the cage against a specialized MMA fighter ... if he's had no prior fights, that's obviously something that would concern us." We concede that a fight against the likes of Cathal Pendred, who is 15-2 and 2-0 in the UFC, would not exactly be a complete rookie versus the best fighter in the world but Pendred is undeniably "a specialized MMA fighter," to use Bennett's term. UFC president Dana White has mirrored the opinion of the representatives of the aforementioned athletic commissions, saying: "We're not going to throw the kitchen sink at him. "(Brooks) is going to fight a guy who is 1-0, 1-1, 2-1, something like that." That all but eliminates a big-name fighter as Brooks' debut bout because I can think of absolutely no MMA fighters with PPV draw without a record of at least five fights. The comparison with Brock Lesnar will inevitably come as the heavyweight entered the UFC with a record of 1-0 and needed just two fights in the UFC to be handed a title shot. He then defended the belt twice which suggested that he was a legit fighter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG8IXMP5zwg But we must consider the wrestling credentials of Lesnar. As an amateur wrestler, Lesnar became the 2000 NCAA heavyweight champion and went 106-5 during his four years of college. That experience is such a glaring absence in Brooks' repertoire and that was further stressed by Hazzard. "Money-making potential is not something that goes into our decision-making process. We have the health and safety of the fighters in mind," he said. "I would say that it would behoove him to get some amateur fights. Get some amateur fights and get some experience." So when we take all that information into consideration, it's an overly-optimistic and ultimately unfair expectation to put on an inexperienced fighter like Phil Brooks to step into the octagon against a competitor who has been training for five, ten, fifteen years. It would turn a licensed combat sport event into a spectacle and would undo all the hard work that organisations like the UFC have gone through in order to make MMA a legitimate sport.